What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The W&B thing(part 2): IS RV-Fun inversely proportional to RV-Weight?

Hartstoc

Well Known Member
A recent thread I posted on the importance of accurate W&B docs generated a lively discussion and lots of valuable shared experience from veteran RV builders and pilots, so I thought it might be worthwhile to expand the discussion in a few other directions. If this one gets a similar response, the next will be about the temptation to nudge the GW limit upward a bit during the registration process. Stay tuned.

This thread makes reference to the "selfie-quote" In my VAF signature, which seems to have ruffled a few feathers already. Is "RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight" a valid statement? Should it be of concern to all RV builders? It may be a bit cryptic, but I think it IS valid for any given RV configuration of engine, prop, and instrumentation.

I'm not an aerodynamicist, and my hard knowledge here is dwarfed by my ignorance, but I do have a limited qualification to bring up the subject based on my experiences as rookie CAFE Foundation test-pilot/author or flight-engineer/volunteer for most of the CAFE APR series published in Sport Aviation during the 1990's, which included four RV models. During these APR's, we measured stick force gradients, explored stall recovery behavior, and flew a structured handling qualities protocol in multiple loading configurations for each aircraft tested, and the overall experience was a real eye opener.

Actually, I'm betting that you RV-vets will have more interesting things to say than me here, so I'll make just TWO points and cut this loose-

1-Absolute Weight- The rewards for lower empty weight are improved performance at any given load and a higher useful load, both more fun in my book. Fortunately, one strength of all Van's aircraft is that they are intrinsically light in weight if built according to the plans, but the designs are also quite sensitive to excess weight for reasons too complex(and too over my head)to fully address here. Ending up with a finished aircraft that is within Van's guidelines requires incredible discipline every step of the way. Weight goes on a little at a time, and the temptation to add more features and equipment because each will "only add a few ounces" is a slippery slope. Those of you just starting to build are in a position to adopt a very strict attitude about weight and maintain it through the whole process. Is it really worthwhile to prime all those inner surfaces on an airplane that will be babied in a hangar? The tired old saw has some truth: "If you are thinking about adding something to your airplane, toss it in the air. If it does NOT fall to the ground, then it is OK to install it." Every pound saved adds 8-15 miles to your range, depending on the model.

2- Polar Mass- Of course, everything you put on that airplane is subject to gravity, but there can be very compelling reasons to do so. Not everything has the same impact, though. Comfy seats are SO nice to have, and actually not a bad place to splurge a little because they are practically inside the CG range. A CS prop will be a must-have item on the RV-7A I am looking to buy, and the impressive speed range of most RV's simply cries out for CS, but there is a real price beyond dollars to be paid. Unfortunately, the gold-standard Hartzell is heavy and as far forward of CG as you can get. Flying with a forward CG requires extra down-force from the tail, which requires additional up force from the wing, etc.,etc., a drag-inducing positive feedback loop that, carried to the extreme, can compromise control authority in flair, reduce cruise performance efficiency, and make the aircraft sluggish and unpleasant to fly. The lightest weight solution to these problems is a bit of lead as far back in the tail as you can get. Now you have a better balanced airplane for control authority and efficiency, but one that handles a little bit less like a mid-engine sports car and a little bit more like a dumbbell. The prop and ballast have slightly increased resistance to control in the pitch and yaw axis. A heavy paint job would do the same, but with a price in category one too. A very strong argument can be made for saving even 8-10 pounds at the nose with a composite prop if, like me, you must have CS.

Or maybe you are ready to give up the CS advantages for a nice, light FP prop and maybe even a lighter engine. Great, you have just solved the polar mass problem and will have an incredibly nimble airplane that is a delight to fly. Now you must REALLY pay attention to the CG, limit luggage, hang everything you can toward the front, and really fuss over making the paint job light, or even go without, or you may find yourself needing to add one of those 20 pound crush plates behind that lightweight prop. (Or hey- maybe I SHOULD consider a whirlwind? Sheesh!) Every choice has a consequence.

Mind you, I'm not here to be critical of anyone's particular choices, many think added luxury is worth any price. I've just seen disappointment on the faces of too many builders learning the true weight of their aircraft for the first time. The important thing is to make these choices consciously and avoid regret. Not putting something on is a lot easier than taking it off later.

Link to my previous thread mentioned above:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=1204252#post1204252
 
Last edited:
Great Post - A few additional points

1. There is always a trade off, more weight needs more power or wing area to achieve the same performance...which often leads to more weight. In RVs, its tough to add wing area, so you have to add more power, which leads to...

2. Years ago a WWII pilot told me to learn to fly the wing, not the engine. Possibly too many folks fly the engine.

3. It was be a fun science project to find the optimum RV performance, the CAFE project did some excellent work in several areas. It would be interesting see what combination of engine, prop, avionics, paint, configuration, would deliver the optimum performance closest to Vans original design specifications. In many ways we are already seeing this in the RV-12 and RV-14 kits.

4. It would be interesting to compare wing loading, handling qualities, for a variety of RV configurations, big engine CS prop heavy acft / small engine FP prop light acft, differing GC envelopes. The red bull air races sometimes show the different turn radius and loop diameters of different acft, it would be interesting to see the differences of various RV configurations doing specified maneuvers.
 
Great Post - A few additional points

1. There is always a trade off, more weight needs more power or wing area to achieve the same performance...which often leads to more weight. In RVs, its tough to add wing area, so you have to add more power, which leads to...

2. Years ago a WWII pilot told me to learn to fly the wing, not the engine. Possibly too many folks fly the engine.

3. It was be a fun science project to find the optimum RV performance, the CAFE project did some excellent work in several areas. It would be interesting see what combination of engine, prop, avionics, paint, configuration, would deliver the optimum performance closest to Vans original design specifications. In many ways we are already seeing this in the RV-12 and RV-14 kits.

4. It would be interesting to compare wing loading, handling qualities, for a variety of RV configurations, big engine CS prop heavy acft / small engine FP prop light acft, differing GC envelopes. The red bull air races sometimes show the different turn radius and loop diameters of different acft, it would be interesting to see the differences of various RV configurations doing specified maneuvers.

Excellent points, especially the one about flying the wing! We are taught to be ready with power during practice stall recovery, but I've always favored instead being sensitive to the wing, "feeling" the flow re-attach and lift return(or more importantly, learn to feel the loss of lift and incipient flow detachment). After all, if you got into that too-slow near the ground pickle because the rubber band broke, you are not going to have the power option.
 
Last edited:
Is "RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight" a valid statement?

I would say it depends on what a persons personal definition of fun is while flying.
For many, the fun of their RV is using it to get somewhere fun. In that context, it usually also means being able to carry a lot of stuff with them that they need for that on location fun.
My wife and I are just now beginning to explore that use of our RV-6A via airplane camping (Just got back from 4 days of airplane camping in the San Juan islands, WA). The payload of an RV-6A makes that a challenge (we are slowly accumulating light weight backpacking gear even though we don't do any back packing).

If we change the phrase to "Is RV performance inversely proportional to weight?" The answer is absolutely.

For the record, I agree with your premise though...
When it comes to the pure joy for the pilot while flying an RV, lighter is always better.
 
The late Alan Tolle built six, I think, RVs, half of them -3s. He said that a lightweight 3 was the most fun.

Then again, when he wanted to go somewhere, he'd fire up the 240 kt Questair Venture. Comparatively speaking, those fly like trucks, which is what you want for an IFR X-C bird.

Ed
 
Interesting post and I've had this on my mind since I started building in 2004 (yes it's a slow build). These are all compromise choices. I decided to prime my airplane (first real decision in 2004) due to living on the west coast near the ocean. I decided to use the biggest engine allowed in my RV-9A (160 hp) due to living near the mountains and a CS prop to maximize the climb rate as well as lower engine rpm in cruise and a small but actual reduction in fuel consumption. I decided to install nav lights because I already have a night rating and I decided I wanted an IFR panel because I want to pursue an IFR rating in this airplane. Several recent posts about this summers' smoke reinforced this decision. And I'm going to paint the exterior to protect it and not get sun glare off the wings when flying or melt the canopy when parked. And I'm going to install relatively heavy leather seats with seat heaters but decided against the full side panel interior. Just seats, upholstered armrests and front and baggage compartment carpets

I've justified two of these choices (160 hp and CS prop) by realizing Vans demo RV-9A was so equipped. I've justified the IFR panel because I want to grow as a pilot and have the additional utility in the airplane. I've justified the seats because I want to be comfortable (my C150 seats are not particularly comfortable).

But, I also have the advantage of being about 50 lbs lighter than the FAA "standard" pilot weight, so I'm willing to put that extra 50 lbs into the airframe with no guilt. I think an RV-3 with a 300 lb pilot might not be fun and I think an RV-9A that was 50 lbs overweight with a light pilot would still be fun.
 
Interesting post and I've had this on my mind since I started building in 2004 (yes it's a slow build). These are all compromise choices. I decided to prime my airplane (first real decision in 2004) due to living on the west coast near the ocean. I decided to use the biggest engine allowed in my RV-9A (160 hp) due to living near the mountains and a CS prop to maximize the climb rate as well as lower engine rpm in cruise and a small but actual reduction in fuel consumption. I decided to install nav lights because I already have a night rating and I decided I wanted an IFR panel because I want to pursue an IFR rating in this airplane. Several recent posts about this summers' smoke reinforced this decision. And I'm going to paint the exterior to protect it and not get sun glare off the wings when flying or melt the canopy when parked. And I'm going to install relatively heavy leather seats with seat heaters but decided against the full side panel interior. Just seats, upholstered armrests and front and baggage compartment carpets

I've justified two of these choices (160 hp and CS prop) by realizing Vans demo RV-9A was so equipped. I've justified the IFR panel because I want to grow as a pilot and have the additional utility in the airplane. I've justified the seats because I want to be comfortable (my C150 seats are not particularly comfortable).

But, I also have the advantage of being about 50 lbs lighter than the FAA "standard" pilot weight, so I'm willing to put that extra 50 lbs into the airframe with no guilt. I think an RV-3 with a 300 lb pilot might not be fun and I think an RV-9A that was 50 lbs overweight with a light pilot would still be fun.

Terry- Congratulations for being so open-eyed about all of your very well though-out choices right from the get-go. This is how great airplanes are built. I've actually been away from aviation for a few years, but back now and looking for a 7A as well thought out as your airplane. My search has revealed what seems like a too-casual attitude about weight among some RV builders these days, and this is what triggered posting these threads. My respect for Dick VanGrunsven as a designer could not be deeper, and discipline about weight is an essential part of his philosophy.
 
I mean, your assertion does seem a little arrogant. People build planes for their particular mission. If that includes a leather interior and full AC then who are you to say they're not having as much "fun" as they could be. You know what they say about opinions.

Don't be so quick to judge others for their build choices...
 
FUN

Fun in my -9 is fantastic acceleration and climb at any altitude with that heavy constant speed prop up front. Also, the additional stability with that prop is nice. As a side note, the efficient wing is good on my pocketbook as well at my age.

That being said, in my old -3, fun was the amazing bird-like feeling which I assume was the direct result of having a very light structure.

Fun in the -6a was the amazing carrier landings that I could drop into for landings with that amazing wing, plus the upside down stuff and the top speed stuff.

I have no feedback on the fun factor in a -10 ......... yet.
 
Otis, thanks for the comments. The primer was the only decision made at the start, all the others took quite a bit of thinking/evaluating over several years. Maybe this is one advantage of a "slow build". Having a dual interest in sports cars and airplanes and being an engineer, two of my heros are Dick Van Grunsven and Colin Chapman (I own a 1966 Lotus Elan). Both have lightweight as a central philosophy of design and every time I add weight as I mentioned in my RV or in my Elan (CV joint halfshafts are 8 lbs heavier than the rotoflex/hollow tube original shafts) I get this feeling that the designer is looking over my shoulder.

I think the central point of starting this discussion is to focus builder's minds on the compromises they are making every time they add weight (it's only a few pounds :eek:). Not too long ago Van chastised an RV-10 builder who had added so much stuff that he really didn't have any useful load left, and he was right to do so, and right to chastise the AirVenture judges for giving him a trophy. In my case, I've balanced (pun intended) the capability vs performance vs max gross weight (not an ounce over the designer's recommendation) issues to the best of my ability.

As an aside, I enjoyed all of the CAFE aircraft reports and wish CAFE/EAA were still doing them (some kind of disagreement or fallout prevents this?). They were the only reports I've ever seen that measured airplane performance properly and were central in my decision to build an RV-9A
 
Weight/Performance relationship

This is a subject dear to my heart! I previously built an RV8A that weighed 975 ready to fly, and had fantastic performance. I listed how I got there in a couple of windy posts some time back. I sold the plane because the grass strip I'm on made me nervous about a turnover. I always wondered how it would have performed with more power (had 160). That bird would climb 1700fpm with 2 FAA sized people and 1/2 fuel, and cruised 205mph/2700rpm at 10,500.

So, I'm doing it again. This one's a tailwheel 8 with 190hp and a fastback, so my hopes are high. I'd like to hit the same empty weight, but plan on painting it, so I might be a little over. Never going to polish again though.....

I'm going to do all the weight saving tricks I used on the last plane, plus I'm going with the airfoil grove gear (saves 11 lbs) and home made fastback (saves 9 lbs). That's almost a paint jobs worth if I limit it to a single color.

I'm even toying with the idea of thermoforming a set of lightweight lexan shorty wing tips. Loved the roll rate of the short tips on the 8A!
 
I just went back to "Section 2 Design Philosophy" from my construction manual dated 4/23/96. It states in part:
"We feel that an RV in its basic form with fixed pitch prop, modest instrumentation and radio, and a carburated engine, represents the best compromise."
This comports with the quote I have heard atrributed to Van of "keep it light and build it simple."
 
Total performance

A different perspective:
My 6 is a multi-role aircraft. We use it for touring, aeros, formation, etc. It does all these things well and it's equipped to enhance our enjoyment, that includes carpet, AP, and other creature comforts that add weight. Some of the extra weight comes from things that give me peace of mind, enabling more of the fun factor. Sure its feels more spritely when it's lightly loaded, but it can often be true to say that the more weight I am carrying, the more fun I'm having. The RV has a lot of capability, and we choose to use it.
 
Last edited:
I mean, your assertion does seem a little arrogant. People build planes for their particular mission. If that includes a leather interior and full AC then who are you to say they're not having as much "fun" as they could be. You know what they say about opinions.

Don't be so quick to judge others for their build choices...

Hmm- Thanks for your feedback- I'll read back through all of this and look to edit anyhing suggesting that I'm critical of anyone's particular choices. My own choices should make it clear that I'm no purist about weight here, or I'd be looking for a polished, 160 HP , Catto prop, basic VFR Airplane.

If you mean the quote itself, of course "fun" is a subjectiive term. No argument there. I suppose you could substitute terms like "performance", "safety", "operating margins", "maneuverability" , and "full-range useful load" to solve that, and I guess all of these things contribute to my own sense of fun where airplanes are concerned.

I hope you will agree that it is a good thing for builders to really think about the impact of their choices on all of these things from a well-informed point of view. It was my hope in starting these threads the conversation might lead a few builders to be a little bit less casual about choices that add unnecessary weight, but I'm not questioning their right to do so.
 
Everything Is a Compromise

As a former A-4, A-7, F/A-18 pilot, I lean toward low weight max performance. As a long-leg cross country flier (I regularly fly from CA to PA with 650 nm legs) I then appreciate the advantages of cockpit comfort/redundant instrumentation/ autopilot/adequate storage.

Just like the old joke when the kid tells his mom that when he grows up, he wants to be a fighter pilot - you can't do both. It's always a compromise.

The perfect solution: own two RVs!

And hey BMC Dave - lighten up; nothing at all arrogant or judgmental in this thread. The forum is here for discussion. The world doesn't revolve around your self-centered negative opinions.
 
"Fun" has to be defined by individual choices and personal mission.

My take is that "fun" is an airplane that is nimble, light on controls, simple, not unduly expensive and performs reasonably well. (just me)

The speed range of any RV makes for quite a challenge in selecting a fixed pitch prop. We are fortunate to have the expertise of Craig Catto in that area and have the best possible FP prop, for about 16 pounds, if you are really into light weight.

I've had an RV with CS and two installations of Catto. What a difference!!

Not so much in fundamental performance, the CS will get you off in about 400' the FP in about 900' (nothing shabby about that) and top end is a wash. But the big difference in is how the airplane reacts to a power change when in the pattern and landing. On first flight coming off CS, speed control was behind me and the airplane. It an hour or so to get with it

So we have choices.

No sense in debating it, just build what you want. YOU WILL ENJOY IT!!

Vans airplanes are fun to fly, that's why they are so popular.
 
And hey BMC Dave - lighten up; nothing at all arrogant or judgmental in this thread. The forum is here for discussion. The world doesn't revolve around your self-centered negative opinions.

Nah, asserting that people need to build a particular way and if they don't they're depriving themselves smacks of hubris. OP clarified his opinion though, sounds like that wasn't his intent but we can only go off what people type :)

Thanks for your input chief.
 
Last edited:
A perspective from a person building something other than an RV...

My wife sat in my hangar-mate's RV8A. She LOVED it!
Then I showed her the baggage space available in the airplane. End of love affair!

We are now building something which will meet her requirements as well as mine. Sure, it won't handle like an RV, won't go as fast, and won't have the looks of a fighter. For me the "fun factor" will be all about taking this airplane on adventures with my wife sitting beside me, sharing the adventure.

As others have said, build what you want, fly it and enjoy the heck out of it!

(Oh I should add, our aircraft has a full IFR panel, autopilot, and heated leather seats. Some of those weight-adding items are for my fun, and some are for hers. Gotta love the spirit of compromise!)
 
In y experience, with two vehicles (airplanes, cars....) of the same power to weight ration the lighter one will be more fun. A 150hp 1500# plane will be more "fun" to fly than a 300hp 3,000# plane.
 
Weight is certainly a factor in perceived "lightness", but I think CG and control surface trailing edge radius are far more important. I recently moved the empty CG in my -3B aft approximately 25% by installing a lipo battery and Pmags. The plane is now 1.0% lighter but the handling is greatly improved.

My ailerons feel a bit heavy relative to a Super Decathlon or Pitts and I think my small aileron trailing edge radius is to blame. I plan on building a new set of ailerons one of these days.
 
Fun

When I first started flying my training was in the venerable Cessna 150 and it was fun. I then purchased a 1958 172 with 145 hp Continental ?took it everywhere in Alaska, actually a quite good off airport performer, and it was fun. I then graduated to a Cessna 182, which I am still flying?the aviation version of the pickup, for me anyway and its fun. I also took on float flying when I got a float slip at Lake Hood Seaplane base after 15 years on the wait list. Citabria 7GCBC, 160 hp?and boy is it fun. In 2013 I completed construction of my slow build RV8, polished, 180 hp, Hartzell C/S prop, 1,121 lb?and it?s really fun?I have yet to find an aircraft that?s not fun, will continue to look.
 
When I first started flying my training was in the venerable Cessna 150 and it was fun. I then purchased a 1958 172 with 145 hp Continental ?took it everywhere in Alaska, actually a quite good off airport performer, and it was fun. I then graduated to a Cessna 182, which I am still flying?the aviation version of the pickup, for me anyway and its fun. I also took on float flying when I got a float slip at Lake Hood Seaplane base after 15 years on the wait list. Citabria 7GCBC, 160 hp?and boy is it fun. In 2013 I completed construction of my slow build RV8, polished, 180 hp, Hartzell C/S prop, 1,121 lb?and it?s really fun?I have yet to find an aircraft that?s not fun, will continue to look.

I like the way you think!
 
All RV's are fun!

I started this thread hoping the discussion might inspire a few builders to think more about the advantages of being carefull about weight. It posed the question "Is it true that RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-weight?, and I said that I thought it is true for any given configuration of prop-type, powerplant and model.

There have been some great replies that probably did get a few people thinking. I was boxed about the ears a bit by a couple of others, and a few have puzzled me, like the ones that suggested that I was telling people what to put on their airplanes, and others that seemed to think that I was saying that some RV's are not fun. There may be a few scary ones, but I'm sure that virtually all of them are a real gas to fly.

What I was really suggesting is that if two builders are building the same model to the same standard, and one of them is super careful along the way, disciplined about things like the weight of paint, goes for the lighter versions of instruments, prop, accessories, etc, and ends up with an RV that is 30-40 pounds lighter than the other one, it is going to perform better, have a longer range, be more nimble and, yes, be more "fun" than the other one. I stand by that and I think Dick Vangrunsven would aplaud its builder, but I never said the other one would NOT be fun. It would, because ALL RV's ARE FUN!

Thank you all!
 
Last edited:
Is "RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight" a valid statement?

I see where you are going but I suspect you are being somewhat elitest. I built and own one aircraft. I do cross country flying, day, night, IFR and just getting into aeros. The RV series are a compromise in design before the builder starts - neither a great aerobatic aircraft, nor a truly high speed cruiser, nor a great STOL machine. Its still a fantastic machine!

Perhaps you need to take a C172 for a ride to get your RV Grin back? I did the other week (after a 14 year break) and all I can say is even an RV7A with two 220lb guys is FANTASTIC compared to that.

The one thing I would say if Van's could help out on the whole CG thing. For example you can buy an engine mount for on O-320 and that will move the engine forward 2 inches. The cowl needs to be lengthened - but it works well with a lightweight engine/prop.
 
I started this thread hoping the discussion might inspire a few builders to think more about the advantages of being carefull about weight...

Though your intentions were sound and I agree with them 100%, you will find 2 things standing in your way to delivering your message:

First, many of the builders here have no formal aviation experience, so the concepts of "build light" are not driven into their heads from the begining. My company is legendary for building some of the most high performance aircraft of all time and we are fanatical about weight. To utter the words "...its only a few more pounds..." is blasphemy on our property. The RV builder is not likely to know the difference between a porky bird or a lithe one once its finished unless it is a GROSS modification.

Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

Generally, the only time I see a heated discussion concerning weight on VAF is when it serves to further an argument - the CS prop vs fixed, for example. If you want to see extreme light thinking, hop over to the Biplane forum and read around a bit. THOSE guys are refreshingly fanatical about excess weight.

So fight the good fight Otis. But dont expect to change any minds. The ignorant are likely to remain that way and those of us in the industry are already on board.
 
Though your intentions were sound and I agree with them 100%, you will find 2 things standing in your way to delivering your message:

First, many of the builders here have no formal aviation experience, so the concepts of "build light" are not driven into their heads from the begining. My company is legendary for building some of the most high performance aircraft of all time and we are fanatical about weight. To utter the words "...its only a few more pounds..." is blasphemy on our property. The RV builder is not likely to know the difference between a porky bird or a lithe one once its finished unless it is a GROSS modification.

Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

Generally, the only time I see a heated discussion concerning weight on VAF is when it serves to further an argument - the CS prop vs fixed, for example. If you want to see extreme light thinking, hop over to the Biplane forum and read around a bit. THOSE guys are refreshingly fanatical about excess weight.

So fight the good fight Otis. But dont expect to change any minds. The ignorant are likely to remain that way and those of us in the industry are already on board.

Michael- Thanks for your refreshing post and excellent points. I think you have hit upon it- the wide availibility of easy to built kits and all the support services that have emerged has resulted in a population of builders who never got a good grounding in the hard realities of aircraft design and performance. This really does underline the incredible value of these VAF forums, though.

I sensed that your second point was at work and tried to address it with my previous post about all RV's being fun.

I did grit my teeth a bit starting this thread, knowing that there was bound to be some "shoot the messenger" sentiment in response, even though the message is a pretty simple statement about inviolable physical realities. I had planned to do a part 3 thread on the perils of using a fountain pen to increase max gross weight during the registration process- but maybe I'll leave that topic for another messenger.
 
Last edited:
And this does hit close to home as I've purchased 3 flying E-AB's in my time and rebuilt each of them to some extent. In each case I have removed a substantial amount of dead weight and each airplane has a horror story of builder indifference attached. I pulled nearly 35 pounds out of my Hiperbipe, and SIX pounds off just the nose of the RV-8 by replacing miles of firesleeved hose with stainless hard line. The final tally on the Rocket is unknown, but when the builder did things like use a chunk of 2x2x.250 extruded angle as a bracket for the master relay and #14AWG wire for EVERYTHING (including the Nav lights!), you know there is a lot of low hanging fruit there.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I'm late to this party.
Has anybody chimed in with dieting or toileting advice yet?
Good thread Otis, nice to know there is the occasional person out there thinking about weight.
 
...Has anybody chimed in with dieting or toileting advice yet...

Yep, did that too. Get the thyroid levels right, cut the sugar, exercise, keep the metabolism up by eating small and often...

...went from 221 to 185 in a few months. The airplane flies better too!
 
Which brings us to #2: even fat RV's perform better than most of the airplanes these builders are coming from, so in their mind its "good enough".

This. My RV-9A is probably on the porky side (CS prop, leather, IFR instruments, autopilot). On the other hand, it replaced my trusty but decidedly pokey 1979 Warrior.

So yes, a heavy RV seems pretty good to me!! The RV has essentially the same engine as the Warrior, but the performance upgrade is.... extremely noticeable. And I get that in an airplane that appears to be as viceless as the Cherokee, and at least as easy to land. And that's really saying something.

I've also lost 20 pounds since buying it. So I lost gross weight to gain gross weight. :)
 
Sorry I'm late to this party.
Has anybody chimed in with dieting or toileting advice yet?
Good thread Otis, nice to know there is the occasional person out there thinking about weight.

I bought app ARGUS to manage food intake, lost 15 pounds.
Does that count? :)
 
Back
Top